Return to the initial?

[jackotron]

Ok,



I had my instrument checkride last week. I passed, but there seemed to be some confusion between myself and the examiner about a procedure.



I had gone missed on my approach, and then proceeded back to the NDB as prescribed by the Missed Approach Procedure. (yeah, I had an NDB on my checkride, 20 knots of wind too. it wasn't fun). I crossed over the fix with only an EFC time, but no further clearance, so I was setting up to hold. I opted to enter the hold with a parallel entry. I was outbound on the outbound course of the approach. During the entry and I was cleared for the approach. So I proceeded to turn back to the NDB in the hold after one minute outbound. The NDB was the only initial approach fix on the procedure. I crossed over the NDB, hung a right, intercepted the outbound course, I flew outbound for a couple of minutes, made the procedure turn, descended and landed.



Afterwards, he said, "why didn't you just proceed outbound for the procedure turn when you were cleared?"



I responded by looking up AIM 5-4-7(e) which says "Except when being...vectored...when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., 'cleared for the approach' ... pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF or and associated feeder route as described on the IAP charts..."



He said that ATC would not expect me to, nor would they want me to return to the Initial in this case. He said that the NDB could fall under the "associated feeder route," but I just don't think so. He said that it was no big deal, just more work than I needed to, and that I backed up my actions with a reasonable interpretation, but he would like to see it done differently.



Does anyone have any insight?



Jack

 

[avbug]

What approach?

 

[mar]

You did the right thing on a checkride

I was outbound on the outbound course of the approach. During the entry and I was cleared for the approach. So I proceeded to turn back to the NDB in the hold after one minute outbound. The NDB was the only initial approach fix on the procedure. I crossed over the NDB, hung a right, intercepted the outbound course, I flew outbound for a couple of minutes, made the procedure turn, descended and landed.

If the events happened in the same sequence as you described them above then I would say you did the right thing.

That is to say: You just started outbound (dead reckoning) on an NDB hold and *then* you get an approach clearance. If I were flying all by myself in an airplane that I was comfortable in and with an approach that I'm familiar with I *might* try to "cowboy" a procedure turn from that point (if I was in a good mood).

But on a checkride I think you're better off (as you say) commencing the entire procedure from a KNOWN point (the IAF) and flying a proper procedure turn.

I mean, that's the whole point of an instrument approach procedure (IAP). To start at a known point and finish at another predetermined point.

When you're outbound on a hold you're really just dead reckoning and who wants to start a checkride from that point?

Good job.

 

[jackotron]

What approach?

Rock Springs, Wyoming RKS NDB-C

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm looking at the approach chart. Let's make sure we understand the question. You executed the missed, climbed to 9100, headed for the NDB. You cross Antelope and heading approximately 065° for a parallel entry to the hold.

I think the point the DPE was making is that you were =already= outbound for the procedure turn. Especially from the point of view of ATC which only sees an airplane that is already on the outbound leg of the PT

I think the DE was saying you could simply (and legitimately) have continued the PT. And remember that the PT barb only tells you which side of the course is protected, not how to do the turn. You could have made the small correction to intercept the 065 bearing from the station (assuming you weren't already tacking it for the parallel entry) and continued the PT as described on the chart. Or, you could have used your parallel entry =as= the PT, descending once inbound.

What you did instead was continue to fly outbound in what to all eyes appears to be the outbound leg of the PT, turn inbound without descending and then fly it all over again for the PT.

Neither way is really "wrong" although the second turn around wasn't necessary and based on your position might have justified a call to ATC to advise that you were proceeding with the hold before turning outbound for the PT.

You had some options in your position. Neither your not the DE's way was "wrong." The DE's way was just more efficient.

 

[avbug]

Also what the DE may have been getting at is that you're not expected to take, and shouldn't take, additional turns in the hold without making a request to do so.

 

[nosehair]

Every entry into a hold awaiting for approach clearance should be traeted as if you are going to get the approach clearance during the holding entry - it happens often enough that you should be prepared for this event and make the approach out of the holding pattern. If you had just started your turn back inbound on the hold, you would treat it as if you had just completed procedure turn. Your holding turn becomes your procedure turn. If it happens just as you cross the fix outbound - you are no longer holding, and should complete the procedure turn, which can be shaped just like the holding pattern, and continue inbound on the approach.

Of course, if you need more time (extenuating circumstances, not lack of position awareness or lack of skill) you can return to the fix, advise ATC that you are going to make another turn and do so, but the examiner was trying to point out that you shouldn't need two turns.

 

[Cardinal]

I concur. Unless you're busy securing an engine or running a checklist, just shoot the approach from the hold when cleared.

 

[mar]

The Big Picture

I guess I really shouldn't have commented without looking at the plate. I had a different picture in my little head.

Anyway, DE's generally piss me off. They're always trying to prove some pet peeve of theirs.

I still think you did a good job.

 

[jackotron]

Thanks to all of you who have posted. This all helps.

**looking at the RKS NDB-C plate**

When I had gone missed, I turned back to the NDB. My bearing was such that allowed me to enter parallel. I did not parallel the outbound course, 065'. I flew the outbound course. It was inside that first minute, (when I had technically entered the hold) that I was cleared. Because I could not make a "normal descent to land" from the NDB at 9,000, to the MDA at 7,160 (that is 2 grand in 1 minute in a 172), I opted to go outbound for the procedure turn. I could not proceed outbound unless I had crossed an IAF, the NDB in this case.

Do I make any sense at all, or did I miss something in ground school?

-Jack

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks to all of you who have posted. This all helps.

**looking at the RKS NDB-C plate**

When I had gone missed, I turned back to the NDB. My bearing was such that allowed me to enter parallel. I did not parallel the outbound course, 065'. I flew the outbound course. It was inside that first minute, (when I had technically entered the hold) that I was cleared. Because I could not make a "normal descent to land" from the NDB at 9,000, to the MDA at 7,160 (that is 2 grand in 1 minute in a 172), I opted to go outbound for the procedure turn. I could not proceed outbound unless I had crossed an IAF, the NDB in this case.

But you =did= cross the IAF outbound less than a minute earlier, didn't you?

This would be a lot easier if we were all standing around the approach plate and drawing on it. So excuse anything that misunderstands what was happening.

"I flew the outbound course" - that tells me that you are on the 065° bearing from the station flying outbound at 9000.

I don't understand why you couldn't make a normal descent to land from that position. As depicted, the PT has a 9100' outbound altitude. Once established inbound you may descend to 8,000 until crossing the NDB for the FAF inbound descent.

I think we're all saying that you were already outbound at 065° at an appropriate altitude. You knew exactly where you were and how much time had elapsed since crossing the fix outbound. Unless I'm misreading the picture completely, all you needed to do when you received the clearance was keep counting seconds to finish off the 1 or 2 minutes (probably 2 considering the 1000' altitude you needed to lose when PT-inbound) PT-outbound instead of turning back inbound for the hold after 1 minute. Do you see that?

On the other hand, if you had already made your inbound hold turn - were already heading 245° back to the NDB in the hold, then I can definitely see the problem - 1000' to lose in what might be less than a minute. At that point, nosehair's comment becomes more meaningful. ATC is =still= most likely expecting you to continue on the approach and head down, but that's a bunch of altitude to lose in less than a minute, especially if you're not expecting it. So advising ATC that you wanted another turn in the hold would have been more than appropriate.

Go back the chart for a minute. Assume the airplane is at 9000'. Can you tell me whether it is doing a parallel entry for the hold or a procedure turn outbound? If you can, how?

http://www.midlifeflight.us/images/pt.gif

Isn't that approximately where you were?

 

[jackotron]

Mark,

Thank's for your help, I was under the impression that regardless of your current position that if cleared after crossing the IAF, you had to return to, or go to another, IAF to initiate the approach.

In regards to making a "normal descent to land," and the confusion there. I was talking about skipping the procedure turn. I know that if once established inbound while holding, then cleared, you may cross over the NDB, in this case, and descend to you MDA. But in this case you must maintain 9,100 while holding and only have 2 miles from the FAF to the MAP. That is what I had meant.

Thanks again

 

[DC8 Flyer]

I have a question, and I may have misread what you did, but why did you do a parallel entry when the missed would have setup for a teardrop entry? If you did a teardrop you would be on about a 035 heading and on the procedure turn (basically) when ATC cleared your for the approach.

Again I might have misunderstood what approach you where coming missed off of.

 

[jackotron]

At 75 knots, with a standard rate turn to the left, you roll out on about a 060' magnetic bearing. That is why I did a parallel.

Jack

 

[DC8 Flyer]

At 75 knots, with a standard rate turn to the left, you roll out on about a 060' magnetic bearing. That is why I did a parallel.

Jack

There you go, Im stuck in the 160 knots missed speed, mode. Makes sense now. You would still have been legal and safe by turning inbound after you were cleared and after a minute, descending to the appropriate altitude and shooting the approach without making another PT.

The pit fall you can run into is if there is someone stacked up above you waiting to do the same approach and ATC does what they did to you, expecting you to go inbound without another turn. They switch you to advisory and then tell the other guy to descend thinking you are out of the way, and wammo! Not a very likely scenario, but something to think about when you are going missed and the missed hold is over an IAF for the approach you are doing again.